How structural differences influence cross-model consistency: An electric sector case study

Abstract

Multiple models are often employed to describe a range of possible outcomes for one or more scenarios, yielding insights into causal relationships and their uncertainties. Electric sector capacity expansion scenarios are a common topic of such efforts due to the economic influence of the electric sector, but model results typically span a broad solution space despite efforts to harmonize input assumptions, making decision implications difficult to discern. This study investigates the relationship between input harmonization and cross-model scenario consistency under disparate electric sector scenarios. We compare cross-model consistency between two state-of-the-art electric sector capacity expansion models (GCAM-USA and ReEDS) for six electric sector scenarios comprising alternate assumptions about fossil fuel resource availability, technology innovation, and long-term economy-wide transitions under four harmonization configurations varying model representations of electricity demand, fuel prices, renewable resources, and capacity retirements. These comparisons reveal that cross-model consistency can vary across scenarios under a given harmonization configuration, suggesting that harmonization efforts must often be scenario-specific if comparable cross-model consistency is desired. Model structural differences can hinder consistency, and the impact of these differences can depend on the scenario. Ultimately, thorough harmonization can reveal insights into cross-model consistency, which can be used to tighten uncertainty bounds and improve the decision-making implications of multi-model activities.